Case 4101843/2023 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) Judgment of the Tribunal in Case No: 4101843/2023 Heard at Edinburgh on the Cloud Based Video Platform on th of May 2023 with Deliberation on the th of June 2023 Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Mr D Patullo st Named
Mr D Patullo and Mr S Digan brought claims against Advance Group UK Ltd arising from work carried out between 27 September 2022 and 8 November 2022. The tribunal found that the parties were dealing on a subcontracting basis and that the evidence did not establish any agreement that the claimants would be paid £30 per hour. It found instead that the contemporaneous discussions and email evidence supported an understanding that the rate would be around £17 per hour, with a separate £220 per day arrangement later agreed for Lockerbie work. The tribunal also found that Brian Patullo, who had relayed information between the parties, was not acting as an agent for either side.
The tribunal dismissed the separate allegation that the claimants had not been paid for certain hours worked. It held that the claimants had not discharged the burden of proof because their schedules were prepared after the event, were inconsistent with the respondent’s records, and were not supported by source documentary evidence. The oral evidence identifying unpaid hours was said to be too general to support findings of fact on specific unpaid periods.
In discussion, the tribunal noted a potential jurisdiction issue because the evidence did not establish an employee or worker relationship and the parties appeared to be in a contractor/subcontractor relationship. It did not need to determine that issue finally, because on the facts the claims failed in any event and were dismissed. No monetary award was made.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim that the respondent had agreed to pay £30 per hour instead of £17 per hour was dismissed. The tribunal found no agreement to that effect and found that Brian Patullo was acting as a conduit of information rather than as agent for either side. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for unpaid specific hours worked was dismissed. The tribunal held that the claimants’ after-the-event schedules were not supported by source documents and that their oral evidence was too general to prove specific unpaid hours on specific dates. | Dismissed | — | — |
The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.